How memes are alive

From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: How Memes are Alive
Date: 7 May 1995 12:29:50 GMT
In my recent articles on memes I've contended that memes are structurally
analogous to RNA. As we know, ordinary viruses are a special kind of RNA which
have learned to exploit the genome factory in such a way as to reproduce
themselves. But most RNAs does not have this property. Most either serve a
function in the genome factory or have no function at all. They're just waste
product of the factory. Thus, if we want to carry out the analogy between RNA and
memes to its full consequences a slight extension of the meme concept is needed.
Clearly, not all memes are viral and centered about survival. In fact, most memes
should have a function (or be mere waste products) in the social factory.
But this shift in the definition of the meme is such a penetrating act towards
memetics that it is necessary to see what exact consequences this has.
Philosophically a purely _viral_ definition of memes is more attractive because
viruses have a more "alive" behavior than ordinary RNA. Then it is natural to ask
why this is so. In what sense is a virus alive?
A virus is clearly not alive in the ordinary sense. They have no body functions,
no internal reproductive machinery and in most of the time they just float about
doing absolutely nothing. They're dead. This is a feature we know from memes too.
A book, when not read, just lies there with no functions, no activity. The
Egyptian hieroglyphs were inactive in the pyramids for thousands of years until
they were discovered and interpreted by archeologists.
But how then is the virus alive? The answer is simple: in an evolutionary
time scale. When we discard the life cycle of an organism and only look at the
act of reproduction the evolutionary properties of an organism comes into play.
Organisms will then have two major properties: 1) they _survive_ and 2) they
_evolve_. Viruses have simply skipped the life cycle and live directly in
evolutionary space.
**This is exactly how memes have come to be viewed.**
Yes, this is exactly the kind of entities which Marc de Hingh calls "information
organisms" or "brain viruses". [earlier I misunderstood this term to mean
viruses which embody the brain. Marc pointed out that they *exploit* brains for
reproduction, just like viral RNAs use the genome to reproduce.] The term
"information organism" contains the duality of memes. Information in itself is
inanimate, but show organic behavior when constrained by evolutionary forces. It
is obvious why this definition of memes is preferred before the more general
definition of memes as cultural RNA. This more extensive definition would include
many cultural patterns which are not alive neither in the viral nor in the
organismic sense. Wouldn't this mean a watering out of the meme altogether?
What's the point of memetics when most memes are not alive? In facing such
troubling questions the extended meme concept is discarded due to the watering
out of the property which initially made it so philosophically attractive.
So in order to adopt this extended definition there would have to be a darn good
reason for doing so, a good substitute for the properties which is lost from the
original meme. And I am happy to say there is such a substitute, and personally I
find it a lot more intriguing and exciting: the cultural Genome. First of all,
memes are placed in a context. They're not just inanimate patterns. They are
reactant chemicals with important functions in the cultural genome. Second, the
cultural genome has a property which the virus doesn't: self-production. It has a
production cycle which greatly resembles that of the genome factory. As such we
are suddenly able to see human activity as parts in a *pulsating* organism. This
is extremely fascinating because we may now not only study the evolutionary
properties of memes, but also their *functional* properties.
So the attraction which is lost by this extended definition of the meme
is regained in manifolds with the organismic properties of social systems.
Furthermore, the original meme concept as "brain viruses" and "information
organisms" lives on untouched since the new definition is a generalization of the
original concept.
Onar.

Newsgroups: alt.memetics
From: hanss@tudelft.nl (Hans-Cees Speel)
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 13:17:51 GMT
>In my recent articles on memes I've contended that memes are structurally
>analogous to RNA. As we know, ordinary viruses are a special kind of RNA which
>have learned to exploit the genome factory in such a way as to reproduce
>themselves.
Let me expand this a little here. Virusses are not only RNA, they also posses
a coat of proteins to get into the hosts. This coat makes sure they are not
detected by the host's immunosystem [if he has one]. So can the meme also have
such a coat?
But most RNAs does not have this property. Most either serve a
>function in the genome factory or have no function at all. They're just waste
>product of the factory. Thus, if we want to carry out the analogy between RNA and
>memes to its full consequences a slight extension of the meme concept is needed.
>Clearly, not all memes are viral and centered about survival. In fact, most memes
>should have a function (or be mere waste products) in the social factory.
>But this shift in the definition of the meme is such a penetrating act towards
>memetics that it is necessary to see what exact consequences this has.
>Philosophically a purely _viral_ definition of memes is more attractive because
>viruses have a more "alive" behavior than ordinary RNA. Then it is natural to ask
>why this is so. In what sense is a virus alive?
It is only alive in the sense that it uses something alive [the host] to
reproduce. It cannot exist without the living host. It has no control system
to make sure it finds the host, or by which it can move towards the host, like
a bactery can move towards light. In other words it has not undergone
a meta-transition. So it is not alive, but it does evolve.

From: linguipunk@aol.com (Linguipunk)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: 9 May 1995 20:15:27 -0400
Onar,
Along these lines, shouldn't we question the requirement that all of the
usual functions we ascribe to living things be accomplished sans
accomplice? Come to think of it, are they ever? Even the notion of
information is parcipitory.
Last night, I was thinking about a novel written, I think, in the 1890's.
The plot centers around a large ocean liner named the Titan who sinks on
her maiden voyage. Interesting in light of your view.
-Dean
"No meme is an iceburg."

From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: 10 May 1995 16:46:22 GMT
>Onar,
>
>Along these lines, shouldn't we question the requirement that all of the
>usual functions we ascribe to living things be accomplished sans
>accomplice? Come to think of it, are they ever? Even the notion of
>information is parcipitory.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. But I think it is important
not reduce the term "alive" into meaning only "survival". Viruses lack an
important property which all other organisms have, namely self-production. But
the fact that viruses keep some organismic properties intact despite not being
self-producing shows that life is multi-dimensional. What
happens when we look at organisms in a purely darwinian way is that we project a
multi-dimensional being on a surface. So from a darwinian perspective what we see
is really just the *shadows* of the organisms. Now, viruses are really nothing
but shadows of other organisms. (without figures there will be no shadows; without
organisms there will be no viruses) Therefore ordinary organisms and viruses
appear identical when we only look at their shadows. But they *are* different,
and we should carefully distinguish them.
>Last night, I was thinking about a novel written, I think, in the 1890's.
>The plot centers around a large ocean liner named the Titan who sinks on
>her maiden voyage. Interesting in light of your view.
This sounds very interesting. Could you explain how?
Onar.

From: Rob Turknett <rturknet@is.net>
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: 11 May 1995 22:58:29 GMT
onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) wrote:
>
>
> >Let me expand this a little here. Virusses are not only RNA, they also posses
> >a coat of proteins to get into the hosts. This coat makes sure they are not
> >detected by the host's immunosystem [if he has one]. So can the meme also have
> >such a coat?
> (*) The psychodynamic immune system is an example of coating of the Self,
> protecting it from destructive thoughts and stimuli. Now, webs of ideas may use
> similar strategies to ensure their survival. The most explicit and extreme
> example of this is the various forms of conspiracy theories.
<snip>
> The conspiracy has a built-in
> defence mechanism which makes it very stable and robust to attacks.
There is another type of "coat" that allows memes to penetrate
a host's immune system. In this case, the meme (which might
otherwise be detected and destroyed) is hidden within a Trojan horse
of other information/memes. By fooling the immune system into thinking
it is friendly, the Trojan horse sneaks the virus past the host's
defenses.
Advertisers are masters at constructing such Trojan horses. A
catchy tune is a frequently used "coating" -- how many times have
you caught yourself humming a jingle and cursed the advertiser that
spammed the airwaves with it? (the point, of course, is that you
remember the name of the advertiser)
Rob

From: linguipunk@aol.com (Linguipunk)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: 11 May 1995 23:48:29 -0400
Onar,
Sorry about my post being so terse. About the first part, you pretty much
covered what I was trying to say. I'm not sure that dependance on a
different species for a life function (reproduction in this case)
disqualifies a thing from being alive.
About the Titanic thing. Your notions on the interdependance between
memes and society (rather than an individual) just brought that anecdote
to mind. It is interesting to think about evidence of the meme appearing
years before the actual event. Another example might be the recent film
'Outbreak' and current events in Zaier. Not that I know what it all
means.
In reference to your earlier post on extending the metaphore to the
protien sheath,
how about rationalization? In the sense of couching a malevolent meme in
euphamism.
-Dean
"Save the humans."

From: djeopm@telerama.lm.com (Sourcerer)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: 12 May 1995 17:56:37 -0400
Rob Turknett (rturknet@is.net) wrote:
> There is another type of "coat" that allows memes to penetrate
> a host's immune system. In this case, the meme (which might
> otherwise be detected and destroyed) is hidden within a Trojan horse
> of other information/memes. By fooling the immune system into thinking
> it is friendly, the Trojan horse sneaks the virus past the host's
> defenses.
> Advertisers are masters at constructing such Trojan horses. A
> catchy tune is a frequently used "coating" -- how many times have
> you caught yourself humming a jingle and cursed the advertiser that
> spammed the airwaves with it? (the point, of course, is that you
> remember the name of the advertiser)
The construct can be considered a phenotypic expression of the meme. The
advertisers' conscious intention is selected for that purpose, and whether
or not the name of the advertisers or their product is remembered is of no
consequence to the successful replication of the meme (which identity may
not be obvious). I can recollect any number of phrases, tunes anad images
which I am sure come from radio and television commercials, yet I have no
recollection which advertisers or products were to be identified with them.
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "I arise, a corpse already wept, and live."
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O --Maximian
|| OO|||OO||O||O

From: hanss@tudelft.nl (Hans-Cees Speel)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 14:46:50
In article <3oqkht$cb9@ratatosk.uninett.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
>Subject: Re: How Memes are Alive
>Date: 10 May 1995 15:02:20 GMT
>>Let me expand this a little here. Virusses are not only RNA, they also posses
>>a coat of proteins to get into the hosts. This coat makes sure they are not
>>detected by the host's immunosystem [if he has one]. So can the meme also have
>>such a coat?
>This is a very interesting question. I have no answer to this, I am not even sure
>if it's possible to push the analogy that far although it would be extremely
>satisfying if it turned out that viral memes tend to be "coated".
I do:-)
Assuming that there are ways to be attractive for a mind to take you up [what
the commercials use] a meme can disquise itsselve by being a part of a complex
conceptual network. For instance:
A meme can be brought connected with a lot of information that has great
appeal to the potential uptaker of the meme. If I want you to do something, I
say, you are nice, state that I have the same problems that you have etc. Now
this can make you ready to take up anything I say after this. The coat of a
meme is then the surrounding connections it has to other items that consearn
the uptaker.
>(*) The psychodynamic immune system is an example of coating of the Self,
A nice theory concerning this is the theory of cognitive dissonance, by Lean
Festinger [if the meme-uptaker is a individual]. Thoughts that do not fit our
beliefs are not taken up[ignored] or are denied or taken to be irrelevant.
>protecting it from destructive thoughts and stimuli. Now, webs of ideas may use
>similar strategies to ensure their survival.
I assume you mean a web of thoughts in an individual. There are webs of
concepts possible in a niche like a science, an organization, etc.
> So there are no logical loop holes in a conspiracy theory and it is by
>definition impossible to persuade the carrier of such a theory of otherwise. This
>is precisely analogous to the virus protein coat. The conspiracy has a built-in
>defence mechanism which makes it very stable and robust to attacks.
>Actually, the above example shows two things. 1) the intimate similarity between
>viral memes and conspiral mimickers and 2) the need for the distinction between
>what goes on *inside* the mind (mimickers) and *between* minds (memes). Carriers
>of conspiracy theories manage to spread their beliefs to other people in an
>extremely limited manner. Thus, if we are include ideas and beliefs in our
>definition of memes then these theories are extremely unsuccessful.
That is indeed usefull. In this way we can also see how individuals
that receive information [memes] pick out what is consonant with their
idea-system. This system includes aswell ideas [concepts with interconnection
to other concepts] as a beleifsystem, that gived each idea a kind of score in
importance. This means that certain ideas are held onto much more firmly then
others. I assume that these ideas are also connected to a lot of other ideas
with a high beleif-value, then the ones that are not high on belief
>>It is only alive in the sense that it uses something alive [the host] to
>>reproduce.
>Through evolutionary glasses (i.e. ignoring body function and life cycle) viruses
>and organisms are indistinguishable. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective
>viruses are alive. But then again, so are the information organisms of tierra and
>the computer viruses.
That is true I think. We can also see texts as alive, strategies, etc. But I
think it is more usefull to see a difference here, because these things evolve
only by actions of living things that do have body-function etc. [interactors].
The replicators need living interactors to evolve, but can do so in huge
lineages that are outside of the interactors. [strategies of firms,
tacit-knowledge patterns, books, etc]
>Onar.
Hans-Cees